On 4/05/2009 rolsen1 wrote:>I agree with.......Muki>>There is no way you can justify any act of violence.
Not in the context of this incident perhaps but 'no way' and 'any act of violence' is not a plausible belief. Self defence, resitance to a greater evil eg. the Nazis are slaughtering Jews and I will kill Nazis to prevent genocide, and other contexts in which violence is not only justified but is the only moral course of action. Even illegal acts of violence can be the 'right' thing to do when the law is wrong.

Well said BP, in one way its a pity charges aren't being laid as i view this kind of
violence atrocious. Some people don't realize how little damage is required in order to
cause permanent loss of function and in some cases death. So if someone thinks its ok
to act in such as way then they better be prepared to sit in court facing very serious
charges; rage is short lived but brain damage isn't.
However, CJ has a point about avoiding spotlight being placed on what is normally a
special place.

without having read most of the crap in this thread or having a clue what the hell happened to piss everyone off so much... CJ you can party with me any time mate, you sound like a proper good time.
personally i reckon a few people would be a lot happier if they stopped taking everything so seriously, who cares if someone is drunk and loud just laugh at them and draw shit on their face and/or deposit them naked in an op shop collection bin when they pass out.

On 5/05/2009 wallwombat wrote:>I'm with all the Arapiles hippies. >>You can't just go around hitting drunken dickheads with hammers.>>It's illegal.>>And I'd certainly wear my helmet more often if it wasn't.

On 5/05/2009 widewetandslippery wrote:>Whats wrong with a fight? Fighting is natural. Bring back the biff.>>I have been drunk and annoying and copped it. I've been sober and got>whacked by someone who is drunk. Shit happens. >>Calling the police is whats lame.

There is a broad grey line between a bit of fisty cuffs and actual hammering of heads. I've always been in favour of the bare knuckle, mono e mono style of fighting; ie no weapons. No one ever gets really hurt then either. You just sort of roll around grunting (no Brokeback jokes please) and swinging.

Which reminds me of the first time I went to Araps. The guys I was with were both mates from Kathmandu (pty Ltd). Someone mentioned Mercy. At the same time, they both said "I've NEVER been beaten". Then the atmosphere changed and their eyes locked. They locked fingers and the bout was under way. I've never seen anything like it. They're both pretty happy go lucky guys, but they both got very serious. They stood there locked for quite a while, sweat beading. Then there was a bit of a push, then another, both trying to mercy the other guy off his feet. Then they fell over, still locked looking for submission. They actually rolled over each other 5 or 6 times, still mercying. I could hardly contain myself with laughter. Classic immovable object and irresistible force.

Anyway, all disputes should now be solved thus. Using weapons is aid, and we all know how bad that is (Hi M9!)

On 5/05/2009 drdeviousii wrote:>On 4/05/2009 orwell wrote:>>A typical Chockstone expert: has an opinion about everything yet knows>>nothing specific about the matter at hand.>>>since you know so much Orwell why don't you enlighten us with the specifics?

Let me think? Should I indulge the Chockstone kangaroo court which has already established the "facts" of the case, tried one of the parties in absentia and condemned them or should I just wait for the real authorities to do their job?

Most posters on this forum have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to take an impartial stance on a serious matter.

I joined Chockstone for the chance to have robust discussions about climbing matters but when it comes to something like this the usual wankers are treating it as if I'd ask some supeficial troll quesion such as "are hexes better than cams" (insert standard knee-jerk "Chocky" shit here).

I'm not interested in being part of a cyber villlage whose population of village idiots outnumbers its opened-minded citizens.

Dod I don't agree..
regardless of what somebody says or how they act, this is never a good reason to hit somebody in the head with a hammer.
As far as I'm concerned, this is completely unacceptable. I know a lot of NSW and Blue Mtns climbers, and I hope it's not somebody that I know.
It's certainly not the behaviour of somebody I would have any respect for.

On 5/05/2009 widewetandslippery wrote:>Whats wrong with a fight? Fighting is natural. Bring back the biff.>>I have been drunk and annoying and copped it. I've been sober and got>whacked by someone who is drunk. Shit happens. >>Calling the police is whats lame.

There's a difference between punching on and hitting someone from behind with a hammer. If that's what happened, then it's not cool.

Being loud, arrogant, drunk, obnoxious etc etc is all very annoying, unpleasant, etc etc but does it deserve being hit over the head with a hammer? I do have a problem with biffo of all sorts but just think for 2 seconds - what would someone have to be doing for you personally to hit them over the head with a hammer? It's a really full on thing to do. Considering it's a fair attempt at serious injury or murder, I struggle to see how it can be at all justified for being drunk, obnoxious, verbally abusive or even mildly agressive. It's maybe a potential response to someone who is trying to kill someone or in process of causing serious harm to someone.

There are plenty of offensive people out there but I don't wish grevious bodily harm on anyone just for being offensive. I'd want to slaughter quite a lot of the human population at varying stages if that was the case. Some of you might want to think about the reality of what you are actually saying. How would the world look if we all responded to things with violence? Surely someone in your childhood spoke to you about not going down to the level of the other party? Talking calmly? Walking away? Using proper channels of response like the police?

From my experience of the police in Horsham, they are down about 13 staff, run off their feet and probably have a bit of a stereotype of climbers (as does most of Horsham) anyway and this whole incident will have done wonders for that image they hold. Ditto the hospital. In the course of my work, the police have often not pressed charges for assaults unless it was requested. Quite how they do that, I don't know, but I expect the understaffing is a major cause of things getting put aside.

On 4/05/2009 Wendy wrote:>So John and friends were having a rowdy late night singalong. Maybe not>the most prosocial behaviour in the world. Maybe he didn't respond well>to being asked to quieten down (I believe the asshole song was part of>the reponse). But none of this is criminal behaviour.>
It may not be criminal, and certainly doesn't warrant a mallet to the back of the scone, but it is an offence under the Regulations of the National Parks Act Section 22 (which covers State Parks):
22. Operating annoying or disturbing device or
equipment
(1) A person must not play or operate any sound
producing device in a park at a volume likely to—
(a) cause inconvenience or nuisance to any
person;
(6) In this regulation "sound producing device"
means a device, the main function of which is to
make, reproduce or amplify sound.

Whether the human voice box classifies as an instrument is a point of contention.
Personally, I would be more likely to fine the people for screaming "SHUT THE F%^$ UP!!" and then instructing them to leave the park forthwith.

Plenty of weapons on a standard rack. Krabs as knuckledusters, a slew of quickdraws as nunchakus, a bunch of hexes as a mace, not to mention the cams that can be used to kill baddies like here!

d (formerly orwell) wrote;>I'm not interested in being part of a cyber villlage whose population of village idiots outnumbers its opened-minded citizens.>I have no need for it any more. Sayonara.

Sad.
If you are that open minded then you have just made it harder for the remaining ones to maintain a balance!

Wendy wrote;>In the course of my work, the police have often not pressed charges for assaults unless it was requested. Quite how they do that, I don't know, but I expect the understaffing is a major cause of things getting put aside.

Expediency is rife in many govt institutions.

Perhaps this could be a scenario;
A drunk yank climber gets assaulted by a pommie/s (climber/s?), at an international climber destination out in the sticks; and the amount of blood spilt is less than a typical brawl in a Horsham pub on a good night, where such offences are committed by locals who need keeping an eye on to minimise future altercations?
Lets tie up lots of time (& tax payer $), finding/charging possible overseas transient/s to appear in court when it could very well be likely they will be back in their country of origin by the time the matter comes up to be dealt with; especially since half the witnesses are from interstate and would love to come back for a court case at their own expense (or bugger all reimbursement at best), should the matter be contested.
~> Better to let their own culture give them a flogging on one of their cyberforums assuming said witnesses don’t feel they are committing perjury!
Not plausible ??
(Heh x some).
~> Would be different if someone died though ...
☺